KCRag Forum

Atticus23:

Dumb question: Will this effect TheGYMKC in the back of the building? The middle of the weight room is an open atrium that goes the height of the current building.

On the back side of the building down a hill from the street level is a gym. Developers plan to bring the gym up the hill and put parking in the basement.

The streetfront hotel really needs to happen...

Keeping parking for the Uptown is vital for that venue. Some performance nights parking spills over into the neighborhood. You might think something dense built up next to Broadway was torn down for the strip mall, but it replaced something actually less dense, an old mansion. I think the stone wall may actually be a remnant of that estate.

moderne wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:27 pm Keeping parking for the Uptown is vital for that venue. Some performance nights parking spills over into the neighborhood. You might think something dense built up next to Broadway was torn down for the strip mall, but it replaced something actually less dense, an old mansion. I think the stone wall may actually be a remnant of that estate.

Wow, any pics? I always wondered what was there and why that wall existed. I always assumed it was some large buildings but thankfully not.

It was once the site of Elmhurst, the mansion of Joseph T. and Annie Ridenbaugh Bird. After Joseph died, Annie took over as president of Emery, Bird, Thayer Company, the former downtown department store. Annie was the last occupant of the home, and in her will she ordered that it be razed after her death.

The house was built in 1898 by John Perry, pioneer Kansas City business man and one of the founders of the Keith & Perry Coal Company. He never lived in it due to a tragedy, so his brother William occupied it.

http://www.thegymkc.com/history-of-uptown.html

https://pendergastkc.org/collection/913 ... baugh-bird

WOW, that is quite the story, thank you for sharing. Was there nothing built on the land between the demolition of the mansion and the strip mall?

It was a parking lot.

http://www.kchistory.org/content/parking-lot-1

http://www.kchistory.org/content/parking-lot-0

Broadway in Midtown used to be a residential street lined with houses. It changed over time to larger buildings and retail. There was another big mansion where the Kansas City Life Insurance Building is now.

http://kchistory.org/content/site-kansa ... e-building

FangKC wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:13 am It was a parking lot.

It's in our blood. Our DNA. We cannot help ourselves.

I wish they would just rip it all down and start over. I drew up my own plans for this back in high school! (I grew up a few blocks away...this was 16 years ago). I would build row homes or free-standing single family homes along Pennsylvania. They would make use of the existing stone wall as a property wall. Hide a huge garage inside the middle of the block. Maybe the garage would connect to underground parking for the homes? Wrap the garage with apartments/retail facing both Valentine and Broadway. Create a really huge second story patio at the corner across from the Uptown. That would be an awesome corner to sit on sipping a cocktail and people watch.

I hate that the new tower is proposed to be smack next to the Ambassador! and f*** that damn surface lot that will never go away!

This is the 3rd Proposed Mixed Use development to pop up in this area over the last 5 years, will this one actually get built? The Old MGE building was supposed to be done years ago. The Law Office Building at Linwood/Wyandotte was supposed to be some kind of mixed use project as well and now we have this one.

We can't tear down everything we don't like. Our planet is warming. We have to be cognizant that every building that has been built, or will be built, produces greenhouse gases that added/adds to our problem. Some of greenhouse gases that were produced in building this crappy shopping center are still in our atmosphere, and will be for hundreds of years. We must do better in making use of our existing buildings, and taking into account that any new ones we build must last a long time, and not just be seen as disposable commodities that we replace every few decades. And that's just the air. Demolished buildings contain all sorts of hideous toxic elements that leach into groundwater from landfills.

There are many blocks of single family houses in this City I would like to just bulldoze and replace with denser housing. In the past that is what I would have advocated. However, now I see the wisdom in renovating what exists. I understand the ecology that is involved better.

Yes, there are things that can be done to improve this property, and allow the standing structure to remain in place, or add to it. What they are proposing is not the worst idea--placing apartments on top of the existing retail building. It adds density and residents. Whether or not the hotel gets built will depend on the market. They could always add more apartments fronting Broadway later, instead of the hotel, if it doesn't pan out.

If I were doing it, I would do what they are doing with the existing retail building--add apartments on top. I would then replace the Uptown's surface parking with underground parking and put additional apartments fronting Valentine Road and Broadway. On top of the buried parking I would create an interior courtyard. European cities are full of these types of plazas. I would also attempt to buy the Knickerbocker Apartments from KC Life, and renovate them at the same time.

FangKC wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:13 am

Broadway in Midtown used to be a residential street lined with houses. It changed over time to larger buildings and retail. There was another big mansion where the Kansas City Life Insurance Building is now.

http://kchistory.org/content/site-kansa ... e-building

Looks like KC Life Insurance kept the same driveway.

FangKC wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:03 pm We can't tear down everything we don't like. Our planet is warming. We have to be cognizant that every building that has been built, or will be built, produces greenhouse gases that added/adds to our problem. Some of greenhouse gases that were produced in building this crappy shopping center are still in our atmosphere, and will be for hundreds of years. We must do better in making use of our existing buildings, and taking into account that any new ones we build must last a long time, and not just be seen as disposable commodities that we replace every few decades. And that's just the air. Demolished buildings contain all sorts of hideous toxic elements that leach into groundwater from landfills.

There are many blocks of single family houses in this City I would like to just bulldoze and replace with denser housing. In the past that is what I would have advocated. However, now I see the wisdom in renovating what exists. I understand the ecology that is involved better.

Yes, there are things that can be done to improve this property, and allow the standing structure to remain in place, or add to it. What they are proposing is not the worst idea--placing apartments on top of the existing retail building. It adds density and residents. Whether or not the hotel gets built will depend on the market. They could always add more apartments fronting Broadway later, instead of the hotel, if it doesn't pan out.

If I were doing it, I would do what they are doing with the existing retail building--add apartments on top. I would then replace the Uptown's surface parking with underground parking and put additional apartments fronting Valentine Road and Broadway. On top of the buried parking I would create an interior courtyard. European cities are full of these types of plazas. I would also attempt to buy the Knickerbocker Apartments from KC Life, and renovate them at the same time.

You're opposed to tearing down homes to rebuild something 'better' but would like to demolish the current parking lot for underground parking/above ground plaza? Tearing up that parking lot would be a lot more intrusive than replacing a few vacant homes with ecologically sound apartments.

There are so many empty lots in Valentine from houses that KC Life tore down. Putting single family at Uptown doesn’t make any sense. For one thing, you’d have constant noise complaints from the new homes with any Uptown Theater concert.

missingkc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:13 pm Atticus23:

Dumb question: Will this effect TheGYMKC in the back of the building? The middle of the weight room is an open atrium that goes the height of the current building.

On the back side of the building down a hill from the street level is a gym. Developers plan to bring the gym up the hill and put parking in the basement.

Thanks!

---

Here is a rendering showing the hotel massing. I wouldn't put too much stock in this image - they probably didn't put a whole lot of time or thought into the hotel portion that may never happen - but I wonder why they appear to have it oriented more towards Valentine than Broadway.



And an alternate look at phase 1:

FangKC wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:03 pm There are many blocks of single family houses in this City I would like to just bulldoze and replace with denser housing. In the past that is what I would have advocated. However, now I see the wisdom in renovating what exists. I understand the ecology that is involved better.

kcjak wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:36 pm You're opposed to tearing down homes to rebuild something 'better' but would like to demolish the current parking lot for underground parking/above ground plaza? Tearing up that parking lot would be a lot more intrusive than replacing a few vacant homes with ecologically sound apartments.

I didn't say "a few vacant homes." I said "there are many blocks of single family houses....I would love to bulldoze and replace..." It's quite a different argument when one is making judgements about ecological impact.

I would only tear out the surface parking for a deck under a central pedestrian plaza, and so buildings can be placed up against the streets, and also to replace the parking that the Uptown Theater needs. If you don't do that, then the neighborhood will be up in arms to stop everything because Uptown visitors parking on their street. I would just add more decks to the garage under the apartments, but one doesn't know how high one can build before the neighborhood protests. I will cite the 17th and Madison project on the Westside as an example.

One is still creating added density and getting rid of a surface parking lot by adding buildings along Valentine and Broadway.

Tearing down blocks of existing homes is different. I've read many arguments that the most ecologically-sound thing that can be done is not demolish existing housing. In many cases, demolishing houses and building denser new replacement housing just adds greenhouse gases to the planet. And the structures you have torn down, some of the greenhouse gases required to build them 80-100 years ago are still in the atmosphere.

It depends on what you call ecologically-sound. Maybe if you are building new structures out of packed earth, and green roofs, you gain in the long run by replacing with those structures. But if you are just building the way we usually build now, you are just adding more greenhouse gases. Any gains will take decades to achieve.

If one is wanting simply to add density to the City, then build those new "ecological" structures on vacant parcels, or put "granny-flats" on lots of existing houses. Keep in mind that in many cities, 40 percent of the land area is surface parking. So there is plenty of land to build the new denser city upon.

The most ecologically-sound method of providing housing is to reuse older structures and just improve the insulation; and methods that are used to heat and cool them. For example, add a lot of insulation in the roof and walls, and put solar panels on the roof. If you stop using mostly natural gas and coal to heat and cool a 100-year-old single family house, that is a huge step forward.

KCtoBrooklyn wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:41 pm

---

Here is a rendering showing the hotel massing. I wouldn't put too much stock in this image - they probably didn't put a whole lot of time or thought into the hotel portion that may never happen - but I wonder why they appear to have it oriented more towards Valentine than Broadway.

I am guessing the drive-in bank entrance is driving this design. They want a very visible entrance on Broadway with signage.

If I were doing it, I would ditch the bank with the drive-in entrance in it's current location, and put a building facing Broadway from the corner of Valentine north to the current garage entrance. I would have one pass-through from Broadway so pedestrians could access an interior central courtyard, and the current retail shops. Then I would place the bank on the corner of Valentine at street level, and have their drive-through enter and exit on Valentine.

The bank in a former name used to have the drive-thru at the corner of Valentine & Broadway.

No more new drive throughs in Midtown!

can only dream

_____

I suspected this would not be an urban minded developer, not surprised hotel isn't streetfront along Broadway. Am thinking it's bait anyway and won't happen. Maybe better to just put a long narrow cafe along Broadway stretch but imagine those involved would give a clueless blank stare if mentioning they should target a contiguous pedestrian friendly flow along Broadway. Most developers just think of their project as their own isolated island.